Early Labour Leadership Poll (YouGov) - Keir Starmer leads

Comments

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

While I'm sure that there are voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, I actually think that it's he who is used as the scapegoat, while Brexit was often the real reason. A shift away from Labour is one thing, a shift to the Tories is quite another. I know people will point to vote share here, but in traditional Labour strongholds, something made voters not only turn from their original party of choice but turn to a party almost diametrically opposite. And (imo) that something was Brexit whether they came right out and said it or not.

Your on the right lines but in the crunch seas Labour did not lose votes to the Tories but to the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The Tory vote share would not go up by much, but Labour's would go down substantially, with the small fry 'benefiting'.

Which prompts me to recall a question I asked (to much booing an hissing) before the election - what is the actual point of the Lib Dems?

Viewed cynically, it seems to be to enable Conservative governments.

A cynic may ask what the point of the Labour left wing is - all they seem to do is enable Labour to lose elections.

I watched the Newsnight debate, none my kind of Labour leader but they did a good pitch at the end. And Nandy impressed, she's vocal, intelligent but it's another thing leading a party.

Nandy has certainly been the most thoughtful candidate about Labour's problems but I would agree that this may be too early for her. Let Starmer stabalise the ship then hand over to Lisa after the next defeat.

Bizarrely, Nany is the seasoned candidate, compared to RLB and Starmer. She was elected in 2010 - they arrived with the 2015 intake.

Thornberry has seniority as she was elected in 2005 - but no-one seems to think she'll win.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

While I'm sure that there are voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, I actually think that it's he who is used as the scapegoat, while Brexit was often the real reason. A shift away from Labour is one thing, a shift to the Tories is quite another. I know people will point to vote share here, but in traditional Labour strongholds, something made voters not only turn from their original party of choice but turn to a party almost diametrically opposite. And (imo) that something was Brexit whether they came right out and said it or not.

Your on the right lines but in the crunch seas Labour did not lose votes to the Tories but to the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The Tory vote share would not go up by much, but Labour's would go down substantially, with the small fry 'benefiting'.

Which prompts me to recall a question I asked (to much booing an hissing) before the election - what is the actual point of the Lib Dems?

Viewed cynically, it seems to be to enable Conservative governments.

Is it the duty of every right thinking person to vote Labour and only Labour then?

Under FPTP voting with principles has never been a luxury we can afford. The 'hard left' has to vote for milquetoast social democracy. Why should the right wing of the left wing be allowed to prance about on the moral high ground, preening their virtuous feathers, while the Tories march into Downing Street?

Are you feeling a bit guilty about your Johnson enabling?

How am I enabling Johnson? Unlike you, I think that Johnson is a worse PM than the Labour PMs I've seen.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

While I'm sure that there are voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, I actually think that it's he who is used as the scapegoat, while Brexit was often the real reason. A shift away from Labour is one thing, a shift to the Tories is quite another. I know people will point to vote share here, but in traditional Labour strongholds, something made voters not only turn from their original party of choice but turn to a party almost diametrically opposite. And (imo) that something was Brexit whether they came right out and said it or not.

Your on the right lines but in the crunch seas Labour did not lose votes to the Tories but to the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The Tory vote share would not go up by much, but Labour's would go down substantially, with the small fry 'benefiting'.

Which prompts me to recall a question I asked (to much booing an hissing) before the election - what is the actual point of the Lib Dems?

Viewed cynically, it seems to be to enable Conservative governments.

Is it the duty of every right thinking person to vote Labour and only Labour then?

Under FPTP voting with principles has never been a luxury we can afford. The 'hard left' has to vote for milquetoast social democracy. Why should the right wing of the left wing be allowed to prance about on the moral high ground, preening their virtuous feathers, while the Tories march into Downing Street?

Are you feeling a bit guilty about your Johnson enabling?

How am I enabling Johnson? Unlike you, I think that Johnson is a worse PM than the Labour PMs I've seen.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

While I'm sure that there are voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, I actually think that it's he who is used as the scapegoat, while Brexit was often the real reason. A shift away from Labour is one thing, a shift to the Tories is quite another. I know people will point to vote share here, but in traditional Labour strongholds, something made voters not only turn from their original party of choice but turn to a party almost diametrically opposite. And (imo) that something was Brexit whether they came right out and said it or not.

Your on the right lines but in the crunch seas Labour did not lose votes to the Tories but to the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The Tory vote share would not go up by much, but Labour's would go down substantially, with the small fry 'benefiting'.

Which prompts me to recall a question I asked (to much booing an hissing) before the election - what is the actual point of the Lib Dems?

Viewed cynically, it seems to be to enable Conservative governments.

Is it the duty of every right thinking person to vote Labour and only Labour then?

Under FPTP voting with principles has never been a luxury we can afford. The 'hard left' has to vote for milquetoast social democracy. Why should the right wing of the left wing be allowed to prance about on the moral high ground, preening their virtuous feathers, while the Tories march into Downing Street?

Are you feeling a bit guilty about your Johnson enabling?

How am I enabling Johnson? Unlike you, I think that Johnson is a worse PM than the Labour PMs I've seen.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

Never mind the points. Feel the goal difference.

If you'd bothered to read the discussion before trotting out your tired and predictable stock 'witticism' you'd have seen my comment was in response to "How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC." So pointing out hat Corbyn wasn't at all toxic in 2017, and probably only became toxic in 2019 after a sustained effort to destroy him, is perfectly relevant.

But hey, I know you only have three or four stock comments to contribute, so knock yourself out.

I thought Starmer was the best last night - I like how he's mostly very direct at answering questions.

Wasn't impressed by Nandy saying Labour made promises they couldn't keep on scrapping tuition fees and promising to nationalise "everything" but couldn't say how they would pay for it. These policies were fully costed as she should know. She was simply repeating Tory attack lines. And later she put her hand up in favour of scrapping tuition fees and nationalising rail, mail, water and energy!

Very strange to see the interviewer start with a line of questioning about whether Blair should be sent to the Hague! This issue really isn't relevant to the leadership contest.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

Never mind the points. Feel the goal difference.

If you'd bothered to read the discussion before trotting out your tired and predictable stock 'witticism' you'd have seen my comment was in response to "How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC." So pointing out hat Corbyn wasn't at all toxic in 2017, and probably only became toxic in 2019 after a sustained effort to destroy him, is perfectly relevant.

But hey, I know you only have three or four stock comments to contribute, so knock yourself out.

How many Labour MPs were elected under Corbyn? Isn't that the most relevant metric? The second most relevant metric being, how many Tory MPs were elected during Corbyn's reign?

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

Shouldn't Labour be making the argument that, "Remember what it was like under Labour? Wasn't it much better than now? Remember when schools were properly funded? Remember when hospitals were properly funded? Remember when the police were properly funded? Remember when the national debt was under a trillion?"

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

I thought Starmer came across well yesterday, very statesmanlike, adult and measured. There are clearly quite a few policy gaps he will need to fill in (he wasn't convincing on what Labour's Brexit policy is now for example.

I certainly hope he will keep Thornberry in her current post if he wins, they seem to have a mutual respect and like of each other. Nandy also deserves to be given a shadow ministerial post, so she can prove herself.

I would keep RLB in the shadow cabinet, to show Labour is a broad church, but not give her a top job. She isn't anything better than mediocre from what I have seen of her.

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

There does seem to be an overwhelming need to support a minority stance, without a serious look at the effects on rights in general.

It's worrying they have all signed up to call this group a hate group,it's helped many women who have been violently raped and abused. I've first hand experience of the great work they do and how much they have helped so many women.

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

There does seem to be an overwhelming need to support a minority stance, without a serious look at the effects on rights in general.

And in doing so alienating so many others. They've been lobbied a lot, but what they've signed up to eliminates debate too. If you question anything you'll be expelled.

I don't see that they can ever be voted in.

You can no platform women for speaking, you can expel them, but this is something people feel passionate about, but questioning it will get you expelled. I'm being somewhat vague as I have previously been banned for this particular issue so hopefully someone else can go into more details on what this means as I'm loathe to discuss the transgender debate on here.

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

Shouldn't Labour be making the argument that, "Remember what it was like under Labour? Wasn't it much better than now? Remember when schools were properly funded? Remember when hospitals were properly funded? Remember when the police were properly funded? Remember when the national debt was under a trillion?"

Remember that was under a centrist ("Tory Lite") Labour government not a left wing one.

Harking back to the previous Labour government will just remind people how successful Blair & Co were compared to the current lot.

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

Shouldn't Labour be making the argument that, "Remember what it was like under Labour? Wasn't it much better than now? Remember when schools were properly funded? Remember when hospitals were properly funded? Remember when the police were properly funded? Remember when the national debt was under a trillion?"

Remember that was under a centrist ("Tory Lite") Labour government not a left wing one.

Harking back to the previous Labour government will just remind people how successful Blair & Co were compared to the current lot.

One of the Corbyn supporters who recently posted here rates Johnson above Blair as a PM.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

While I'm sure that there are voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, I actually think that it's he who is used as the scapegoat, while Brexit was often the real reason. A shift away from Labour is one thing, a shift to the Tories is quite another. I know people will point to vote share here, but in traditional Labour strongholds, something made voters not only turn from their original party of choice but turn to a party almost diametrically opposite. And (imo) that something was Brexit whether they came right out and said it or not.

Your on the right lines but in the crunch seas Labour did not lose votes to the Tories but to the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The Tory vote share would not go up by much, but Labour's would go down substantially, with the small fry 'benefiting'.

Which prompts me to recall a question I asked (to much booing an hissing) before the election - what is the actual point of the Lib Dems?

Viewed cynically, it seems to be to enable Conservative governments.

Is it the duty of every right thinking person to vote Labour and only Labour then?

Under FPTP voting with principles has never been a luxury we can afford. The 'hard left' has to vote for milquetoast social democracy. Why should the right wing of the left wing be allowed to prance about on the moral high ground, preening their virtuous feathers, while the Tories march into Downing Street?

Are you feeling a bit guilty about your Johnson enabling?

How am I enabling Johnson? Unlike you, I think that Johnson is a worse PM than the Labour PMs I've seen.

Did you vote Labour?

No I didn't. Does that mean I enabled Johnson?

That remains to be seen.

If you voted for another party, were they the party most likely to defeat the Tories in your constituency?

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

Shouldn't Labour be making the argument that, "Remember what it was like under Labour? Wasn't it much better than now? Remember when schools were properly funded? Remember when hospitals were properly funded? Remember when the police were properly funded? Remember when the national debt was under a trillion?"

Remember that was under a centrist ("Tory Lite") Labour government not a left wing one.

Harking back to the previous Labour government will just remind people how successful Blair & Co were compared to the current lot.

One of the Corbyn supporters who recently posted here rates Johnson above Blair as a PM.

Once again you make the mistake of confusing forum members with the top of the Labour party.

Starmer has already said he won't be thrashing New Labour's legacy and that he is going to defend it. So I await with very keen interest what all your posts will be like come May.

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

Shouldn't Labour be making the argument that, "Remember what it was like under Labour? Wasn't it much better than now? Remember when schools were properly funded? Remember when hospitals were properly funded? Remember when the police were properly funded? Remember when the national debt was under a trillion?"

Remember that was under a centrist ("Tory Lite") Labour government not a left wing one.

Harking back to the previous Labour government will just remind people how successful Blair & Co were compared to the current lot.

One of the Corbyn supporters who recently posted here rates Johnson above Blair as a PM.

Once again you make the mistake of confusing forum members with the top of the Labour party.

Starmer has already said he won't be thrashing New Labour's legacy and that he is going to defend it. So I await with very keen interest what all your posts will be like come May.

You're doing the sarcasm, aren't you?

I predict purupuru will still be monotonously recycling his four 'points' as if Corbyn was still in charge. Complaining about Corbyn seems to be his mission in life. Can't imagine what a post of his that wasn't doing that would look like, to be honest.

To get back on topic and not have several more pages of 'did you vote Labour' and 'what did you think of Tony Blair' I notice the FT are again saying the Tories are now increasingly concerned about Starmer as they fear the policies he is pledging to keep will stop the Tories from making a mark on the Red Wall seats.

This is probably close to the truth. Its just not in the Tories DNA to suddenly start putting money into socialist policies. So all the big promises Boris has made will come to very little or more likely be seen as weak gestures rather than actual real change. I mean moving the Lords to York has no effect on anyone in the Red Wall. What they want is proper transport links, better roads and better investment in their local areas. Thinking moving the Lords to York where people get £300 just for turning up suggests the Tories still don't really get it.

Shouldn't Labour be making the argument that, "Remember what it was like under Labour? Wasn't it much better than now? Remember when schools were properly funded? Remember when hospitals were properly funded? Remember when the police were properly funded? Remember when the national debt was under a trillion?"

Remember that was under a centrist ("Tory Lite") Labour government not a left wing one.

Harking back to the previous Labour government will just remind people how successful Blair & Co were compared to the current lot.

One of the Corbyn supporters who recently posted here rates Johnson above Blair as a PM.

Once again you make the mistake of confusing forum members with the top of the Labour party.

Starmer has already said he won't be thrashing New Labour's legacy and that he is going to defend it. So I await with very keen interest what all your posts will be like come May.

You're doing the sarcasm, aren't you?

I predict purupuru will still be monotonously recycling his four 'points' as if Corbyn was still in charge. Complaining about Corbyn seems to be his mission in life. Can't imagine what a post of his that wasn't doing that would look like, to be honest.

Of course and that is exactly how I picture it. Groundhog day... I'm not sure if Purupuru has realised a leadership election is taking place.